Dog to be euthanized after biting a person who was beating him

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

Ophelia, I feel the same way with Clyde. We chose his breed so he could defend our house in case a malicious person breaks in. Stories like this cause me to fear that if he is called upon to defend our home one day, he will die at the hands of the "law" while saving our lives from a criminal...

What I don't understand is that nothing was said in the original article about a dogfight... yet the woman claims she was trying to break it up. So the questions are, if it was her dog (she claims Dutch later attacked the same dog again, assuming it's hers?), what injuries did it sustain? If it was another dog, how did it get in when photo's of her backyard make it look completely fenced?

In the original article, 'photos admitted to court showed that the woman’s puncture wounds from Dutch's bite did not have tears of the skin. In addition, the woman did not receive stitches for her wounds.'

In the later update, it said both bites went to the bone and she also fractured her finger.

Obviously someone is lying and if Dutch's behavioural reports are anything to go by, he didn't attack for no good reason :/

I was a dum dum and posted about this in another part of the forum before I saw this.

I really do agree, something is... off about all this. First all it states is that she was bitten, no stitches. Then it says it was a dog fight, she was trying to break it up, bad injuries yadda yadda... I mean... who's lying and who isn't? It's fishy to me. Obviously the article is biased in the dog's favor, and I havent' had a chance to do a bit more research to substantiate it. But I do agree that right now, reading it- Dutch does not deserve to die. This woman has it out for him for some reason.

Okay I am glad Im not the only one who thinks that there is something missing and that somebody is being dishonest. I found the "save Dutch" Facebook page and there is some more information (although this is also biased, favoring the dog). The reason Dutch was left with this women is (according to Facebook) "Dutch is [currently] with his owners and they have moved him to Oklahoma. Dutch was left in the care of this person because they were going on a 10 hour round trip and did not want him to be left alone. The owners have known her for almost 12 years and had no idea that Dutch would suffer abuse under her care"

There is also a news report seen here:
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=315902
which has a link to the city's statement.

Im still confused...if there was another dog involved where is the report of the other dogs injuries and why would Dutch show no aggression when evaluated..it sounds like someone is being dishonest

There are several other articles related to this now. Don't feel like cuting/pasting the addresses.

First, he had only had the dog for one month at the time of the incident. You can't train a SD in a month.

Two, she was attempting to break up a dog fight where the dog in question was the aggressor (according to multiple other news sources).

Three, he didn't bite until after the fight was broke up and she was moving him to another area (again, another news source). That indicates he's got "poor nerves" in K9 handler slang. As one person I know put it, they were 4+ on the Dunbar scale. The dogheir article had more detailed info (if you have a log-in) about the severity of the injuries to the human. It sounds like she didn't know the best way to break up a fight and this is a 107# dog. That said, I've broke up fights (alone) between my APBTs and haven't had a dog redirect on me; I also provide a complete exam and needed aftercare without giving them time to calm down/cool off. Never had an issue. I've also broken up fights at dog shows (when one has gotten loose and I just happened to be one of the first to respond) and haven't been bitten.

Four, the so-called trainer who evaluated him after the incident is NOT a canine behaviorist. A CGC evaluator has no clue about canine behavior. Most dogs, even those with temperament issues, can pass a CGC with a little bit of work. The dog needs to be seen by someone qualified to conduct an ATT or a certified behaviorist. It certainly doesn't need to be paraded around in public at this time.

Five, he's been taking the dog out in public and posing for pictures (in an attempt to help his case) since the incident. I strongly suspect he didn't inform the parents of the children asked to pet the dog in the mall that the dog had recently bitten someone.

There are plenty of pics showing some majorly sloppy handling as well as him allowing things that no real SD handler would allow from their dog. It has been reported that the dog didn't start SD training until after the bite. That appears to an attempt to keep the dog from being PTS using the excuse that since he's a Vet he's suffering from PTSD. The reality is, even if he is truly disabled (and not faking in an attempt to get the dog spared), his dog will never be allowed in a VA facility.

This is the link to the official statement made by the city officials:

http://www.cityofmontrose.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=458

Personally, I believe both sides are trying to cover up what actually happened and are trying to make themselves look better. I feel bad that the woman was bitten several times, but her story seems a bit off. The way the article on dogheirs is worded makes it sound like she randomly started hitting Dutch for no reason, just beating on him. But she was trying to break up a dog fight (don't really buy the whole 'only hit the dog once with a tiki-torch then discarded because it bent'...there was blood on it). Also wonder how she was able to lead him into the house before being bitten (don't know if trying to wipe his face off caused pain?). However, her story apparently has changed several times and it is a bit hard for me to take her word as absolute truth as to what went down exactly. I also wonder why they would allow that same dog Dutch was in a fight with into the house...causing another fight. I would like to know if the dog Dutch was in a fight with was taken to a vet, and if any injuries were documented. If so, that would lend more credibility to their version.

Still, I don't believe Dutch deserves to be euthanized. Def not cut out to be a SD if he is reactive/aggressive to other dogs though.

I have found accounts that he entered SD training after the incident. Not sure how true that is and is not, but something about the plea for attention as originally presented did have me go look for the missing part of the story, thinking there sort of had to be one.

The owner was supposed to surrender the dog to AC on Feb. 14th. The judge ordered that they would hold the dog until all of his appeals were exhausted. The owner left town with the dog.

I forsee him spending not only a year in jail (would have only had to do 2 days if he'd turned over the dog), he's looking at contempt charges, full fines (which were previously going to be partially suspended.

Now it appears he wants to work out a deal to send the dog to Best Friends (or someplace like that). He didn't want to foot the bill for that before, just like he didn't want a behaviorist to look at the dog.